Military Review

"Petrel" without a nuclear engine

156

It will fly to the other side of the Earth, bypassing all air defense and missile defense lines.


You've probably heard this history... Cruise missile "Petrel" (index 9M730, NATO code designation - "Skyfall"). The main surprise of the Burevestnik is that a flight over a distance of tens of thousands of kilometers is possible without a nuclear reactor. A conventional turbojet engine running on high-calorie synthetic fuel (decilin, Jet Propellant JP-10) or aviation kerosene can handle it.

It is this conclusion that follows from the characteristics of known samples aviation and rocketry. Facts, ratios and figures. This is the next story in two episodes.

Episode one. About babies who can fly unimaginable distances


The turbojet engine TRDD-50 is only 4% of the launch weight of the Russian cruise missile Kh-101. In other words, the engine of a two-ton rocket with a speed of 800 km / h can be lifted by hand (82 kg).

"Petrel" without a nuclear engine
Photo: Evgeny Erokhin / missiles.ru

TRDD-50 develops 450 kg of thrust (according to other sources - 360). Dozens of times less than jet aircraft engines. Nevertheless, these values ​​are enough for a subsonic cruise missile (CR) flight.

First of all, KR are distinguished by low aerodynamic resistance. The Kh-101 is kept in the air only by a pair of folding "petals". The span of such a wing is 4 meters. The aircraft has neither takeoff nor landing modes. The faster it "lands", the worse it is for the enemy.

For a uniform flight at a speed of about 800 km / h, in the absence of any need to reach the maximum angles of attack or to perform maneuvers with a large overload, a miniature engine with a thrust of a couple of hundred kilograms is enough for cruise missiles.

This results in high fuel efficiency and long range.



Kh-101 missiles on a multi-position ejection mount inside the Tu-160 bomb bay

In terms of fuel consumption, such a KR is more consistent with the parameters of trucks than those characteristic of jet aircraft. The specific consumption of 0,71 kg / kgf * hour in the maximum mode means that the X-101 rocket consumes only 40 liters of liquid fuel per 100 km of flight. In practice, in cruise mode, the indicator should be even lower.

As a result, the Kh-101 is able to fly at a distance of 5 km!

In the sources, there is a value of 1 kg (approximately 250 liters) of decilin fuel. Fuel is more than half of the X-1's launch mass. The rest is lightweight electronics units, a body, a miniature engine and a solid warhead (350-101 kg).

Discussion about cruise missiles is impossible without Russian "Caliber"


Of greatest interest is the ZM-14 modification used against ground targets. "Caliber" is much more compact and lighter than the Kh-101. In open sources, the value of the starting mass is 1 770 kg. At the same time, the dimensions of the "Caliber" allow it to be launched through a standard 533-mm torpedo tube.

1 kg is not an indicator for comparison. Unlike the aircraft-based Kh-770, the Caliber takes off from the surface (or from under the water). He must independently pick up speed, at which a wing with a span of 101 meters will be able to keep the rocket in the air. At least two hundred kilograms of the starting mass was spent on a detachable solid-propellant booster. It is incorrect to consider the accelerator as the first stage due to its extremely short operating time.

The cruising section of the flight with a length of more than 2 kilometers takes place with the participation of a small-sized turbojet engine TRDD-000, the characteristics of which are described at the beginning of the article.

We see similar specific indicators. The rocket, whose mass after separation of the accelerator is about 1,5 tons, is capable of flying a distance of 2000-2600 km. Greater value applies to the version with thermonuclear combat equipment.


For further comparison, we will focus on the "Caliber" with a conventional warhead weighing 450 kg, which corresponds to the mass of the X-101 warhead. Engine of the same type. Similar layout. Subsonic speed. The starting booster is not taken into account for the "Caliber".

The cruise missile with a launch weight of 1 kg has a flight range of 500 km.

The cruise missile with a launch mass of 2000–2400 kg has a flight range of 5 km.

The Kh-101 has a number of obvious advantages. Unlike the "Caliber", the appearance of the X-101 is more subordinated to the requirements of aerodynamics and stealth technology. An aircraft missile is devoid of the need to withstand heavy loads arising from a launch using a solid propellant booster. And its design is not designed to withstand water pressure during deep launches. As a result, in the presence of the same engine and a similar warhead, the X-101 has twice the amount of fuel. And at least 2,5 times longer flight range!

In each case, giant distances are described. 2 km is enough to fly in any direction over all of Europe. 000 km - provide a transatlantic flight. Intercontinental range! Let me remind you that we are talking about aircraft with minimum weight and dimensions. In fact - flying ammunition. Without any exotic technology. Massive weapon.


If we put all the facts together, we come to the following conclusion.

In the absence of strict requirements for weight and dimensions (launch through a torpedo tube, suspension on a multi-position launcher inside the Tu-160 bomb bay), it is possible to create a cruise missile with a launch mass of 5-10 tons with a flight range of tens of thousands of kilometers... Yes, you need another starter accelerator. For example, "Caliber" - this is 10-15% of the starting mass. Doesn't change the picture.

10 tons? When launched from a ground installation?

According to domestic traditions, it looks modest. Consider, for example, the X-22 anti-ship missile 11 meters long and weighing 5 kg. Which nevertheless was placed under the wing of the aircraft.


Why did the six-ton ​​X-22 fly only 600 km?

The answer is more than three speeds of sound. The engine was a liquid-propellant rocket engine - 1 kg of fuel and 015 kg of oxidizer!

We have just discussed the 40 liters per 100 km consumption, which the Caliber flies in about 7,5 minutes. The X-22 engine used a turbo pump with a flow rate of 80 liters per second!

Equipped with a small-sized turbojet engine and using the "Caliber" flight profile, such a rocket would fly over the ocean.

Episode two


The first part of the article was devoted to cruise missiles: what prospects are open to the creators of this weapon.

It's time to turn to the other side of the issue and talk about the existing military aircraft with an autonomous flight range comparable to the Burevestnik nuclear missile.

For example, the RQ-4 Global Hawk drone with a range of 22 km.

Empty weight - 6 800 kg. Maximum takeoff - 14 600 kg. The volume of the fuel tank is 7 847 liters. The engine is a Rolls-Royce F137 turbojet, similar to those used in modern business jets. Engine thrust - 3 400 kgf.

Maximum speed - 629 km / h; cruising - 570 km / h. The flight duration is 32 hours.


Readers will surely be outraged by the example and size of the "Global Hawk". Too abrupt transition from cruise missiles to a device with a length of 14,5 meters and a wingspan of almost 40 meters!

The disproportionately large wing of the Global Hawk is a consequence of its appointment. It was not created for political advertising and the Guinness Book of Records. This is a strategic scout that needs to climb to an altitude of 18-20 km in order to see as much as possible from there.

The wing has a high aspect ratio and an aerodynamic quality equal to 33, as in a sports glider. The engine roars at maximum, the wings cling to the thin air ...

The RQ-4 nose cone conceals a 9,5 cubic meter compartment filled with reconnaissance equipment. Radar, cameras, sensors, communication antennas. Almost 700 kg payload.

Further, it should be noted that the RQ-4 is a reusable aircraft. Which required the presence, for example, of a retractable tricycle chassis.

Purely hypothetical. If you remove all the "superfluous", spend part of the released load on the warhead, and the rest - on additional fuel, then the resulting American "Petrel" (Cormorant) will show an unlimited flight range. At the very least, it will exceed any required distance on the scale of this planet.


Leave jokes aside. Now let's talk about the serious.

If you do not climb the extreme 20 kilometers, then flying at a subsonic speed at high altitudes is energetically more profitable than flying at an altitude of 100 meters. The Global Hawk example did not include a proposal to build a cruise missile based on high-altitude reconnaissance principles. First of all, the example proves the performance of the turbojet engine and onboard systems of modern aircraft for tens of hours in autonomous mode.

The Global Hawk has been flying since 1998 and is significantly outdated by now. Its RQ-180 receiver retained the same set of flight characteristics, but was made according to the "flying wing" scheme. The stake is on less visibility, at which it makes sense to talk about the appearance of some combat stability.

In any case, serial Drones with 700 kg of payload capable of flying from the North to the South Pole, once again give reason to doubt the usefulness of a nuclear reactor for flights in the atmosphere.

Instead of an afterword. A rocket with a launch weight of 20 tons?


TRDD-50 develops only 450 kg of thrust (according to other sources - 360). Dozens of times less than jet aircraft engines ...

The thrust generated by a turbojet engine, the size of a travel bag, becomes an extremely difficult task when trying to obtain such thrust using a nuclear reactor.

450 kgf at a cruising subsonic speed of 270 m / s means a power of 1,2 MW. The obtained value is almost 10 times higher than the thermal power of the small-sized reactor "Topaz-1". A really created sample that was used on space satellites. In this case, the mass of "Topaz" was 1 ton.

It is not surprising that when assessing the size of the Petrel, the following statements appear:

“The dimensions of the newest rocket are one and a half to two times larger than the“ one hundred and first ”. Unlike the latter, the wings of the "Petrel" are placed not below, but on top of the fuselage. Also in the video you can see the characteristic protrusions. Most likely, it is there that the air is heated by a nuclear reactor ... The mass of the Burevestnik is several times, and probably an order of magnitude, greater than that of the Kh-101. "
("Military Industrial Courier", 2019)

Author:
156 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. purple
    purple 19 October 2021 15: 07
    +18
    It must be booked otherwise it will be shot down lol
    1. Wildcat
      Wildcat 19 October 2021 15: 28
      +24
      At a minimum, the armor should hold the 127mm projectile of the universal Mark 45. Accordingly, the armor belt of the rocket should be somewhere around 190mm.
      And, of course, the rocket should be able to shoot back from the carriers of 127 mm station wagons. This means that it must be equipped with a rapid-fire gun with a caliber of at least 305 mm.! Perhaps also universal ...
      wassat
      1. Santa Fe
        19 October 2021 15: 42
        +11
        Accordingly, the armor belt of the missile should be somewhere around 190 mm.

        I respect every comment from readers. Even for those who apply for the Golden Petrosyan Prize.

        But I would like more substantive and meaningful comments. On this topic, do you Wildcat have something to add? Range of flight of the CD with trd. How is it limited?
        1. Wildcat
          Wildcat 19 October 2021 15: 51
          +3
          hi
          As you probably know, "The flight range of the KR with trd. How is it limited?" primarily limited by the fuel supply.
          So why don't you consider automatic in-flight refueling from another Petrel Tanker, like the MKew 25 Stingray? The picture is so-so, but such Petrels can be launched from a special highly protected mobile platform with the name "named after the battleship Marat". With the help of large-caliber guns, of course. Universal, of course.
          1. Santa Fe
            19 October 2021 16: 05
            +4
            first of all, it is limited by the fuel supply.

            With a mass of 2 tons, the flight range of the X-101 ALREADY reaches 5000 km

            Based on the examples of Caliber and X-101, What mass should a CD with a range of 30 km have? Evaluations
            1. Wildcat
              Wildcat 19 October 2021 16: 10
              +1
              Do you want to take me as a co-author? For making calculations in your articles? For calculations of CD with a range of 30000 km?
              I don’t subscribe to that.
              If you are on 01.04. composing something, I can throw you a couple of funny pictures. Or by this day I can lend you a helping hand with a calculator, as much as possible (in the form of a link).
              Although on 01.04 you are doing very well.
              1. Santa Fe
                19 October 2021 16: 19
                +5
                Thank you, I am not interested in such help. Nonsense about armored missiles is also not really needed, but every comment is an increase in the capitalization of an article. For which special thanks
                1. Wildcat
                  Wildcat 19 October 2021 16: 31
                  +3
                  hi
                  Okay, I won't talk about booking missiles anymore.

                  Let's add comments and capitalization. From the heart.

                  Let's discuss increasing the range of the Petrel with the help of the Petrel - a tanker.
                  Well, what else to discuss on VO if you don't need to book?
                  1. Petrel - a tanker and we will call it - Petrel.
                  2. We rename the Battle Petrel into "Y. Peresild" in honor of the first woman of the actress-cosmonaut.
                  3. It remains to solve the most important question of refueling.
                  "Boom" or "hose-cone"?
                  In both cases, "Petrel" is above, "Y. Peresild" is below. In the "rod" version, the Petrel must insert its own rod; in the "hose-cone" option, the Yu. Peresild must attach its receiving rod to the petrel's hose.
                  Which way do you think is better? Well, in order to "have no analogs" and "partners", how should you enlighten?
                  1. Santa Fe
                    19 October 2021 16: 38
                    +2
                    Let's discuss increasing the range of the Petrel with the help of the Petrel - a tanker.

                    Why

                    First, you need to estimate the launch mass of the CD with a flight range of 20-30 thousand km

                    Existing examples - 5000 km with a launch weight of 2 tons. This is a very encouraging result.
                    Okay, I won't talk about booking missiles anymore.

                    stop good
                    1. Wildcat
                      Wildcat 19 October 2021 17: 25
                      +4
                      "Why
                      First, you need to estimate the launch mass of the CD with a flight range of 20-30 thousand km "
                      Well, how would the rocket return or what? Just in case: the intercontinental range of Bulava is 9300 km, and the equator is only 40075 km.
                      Where are we flying "KR with a flight range of 20-30 thousand km"?

                      And have mercy, the discussion "what is bad about an intercontinental cruise missile" ended in the last century, in the 60s or 70s.

                      Better to discuss the battleship carrier of in-flight refueling CDs (not to be confused with the Iowas, their Tomahawks had no refueling!). At least no one has done this yet.
                      I propose to supplement the armor and guns of battleships with Peresvet lasers. And, of course, mirrored armor from enemy lasers. Let it look like a disco ball, cool!

                      A battleship disco ball with lasers will look something like this:

                      PS Battleships, like disco, are all extinct. Only in museums have remained.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        19 October 2021 17: 44
                        +1
                        Where are we flying "KR with a flight range of 20-30 thousand km"?

                        On the route of the nuclear-powered rocket that the President presented in his message

                        If there is no difference in performance, then why would a nuclear engine
                      2. Wildcat
                        Wildcat 19 October 2021 17: 52
                        +2
                        hi
                        Right now I regret that it is not you and the President who are drinking tea.
                        You would have convinced him of some redundancy of nuclear engines on the CD and would have convinced him of the need to create protected high-speed ships with decent artillery. And such ships would be useful.
                      3. Santa Fe
                        19 October 2021 18: 59
                        +5
                        Would you convince him of some redundancy of nuclear engines on the CD

                        Why. I completely agree with the President's speechwriters that the demonstration of cartoons about superweapons is the best political advertisement for a significant part of the population.

                        But I do not agree that all this is good for the country
                      4. Wildcat
                        Wildcat 19 October 2021 19: 55
                        +5
                        Well, you can’t argue.
                        winked
                        On this, let me take my leave, things are calling, and the "life-giving clickbait" has come well.
                        It is strange that the topic of "Peresild refueling" did not come up .... but the public liked the booking of missiles and the peaceful atom in space.
                        hi
                      5. Santa Fe
                        19 October 2021 20: 06
                        +1
                        Have a nice evening hi

                        Thank you for your time
                      6. Aleks2048
                        Aleks2048 20 October 2021 00: 04
                        0
                        On the route of the nuclear-powered rocket that the President presented in his message

                        If there is no difference in performance, then why would a nuclear engine

                        And if not along the route presented by the president? And let's say with some "hovering" (movement in a circle) for 2-3 days or an even longer period over a little-visited site in order to get new coordinates and a route in the future to strike in an unexpected place? This certainly cannot be achieved with any (reasonable in order to cram into a rocket) volume of liquid fuel.
                      7. hrych
                        hrych 20 October 2021 07: 27
                        +2
                        Here, even the question is not of unlimited range, but the question of unlimited flight time, which undoubtedly correlates with the first. The question of reusability is also interesting. Those. A kind of watch in the air, like that of a missile carrier or a reconnaissance aircraft, a return to its water area and a splashdown (by parachute or even ... a soft landing), or better, docking with an aircraft, etc. Those. not wasting the payload on the chassis, having the capabilities and specialization of GlobalHock (why not), plus a nuclear kamikaze, but did not "fire and forget", but fired, changed his mind and returned. And in this spirit. Your concept art is certainly not the same. [
                        It is the top of the rocket that does not have protrusions, which may hint at docking with the aircraft. And the tests of the atomic vehicle themselves are hardly designed for its liquidation on the surface. The Greens will not forgive us. Three in one, global unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, CD of unlimited range (which is the essence of a nuclear kamikaze drone), a missile carrier carrying out patrols. Moreover, why shouldn't he, besides his body, carry another mini CR or just a rocket, a mini-torpedo anti-submarine, etc. Work, both on the external control center and with his thermal imager, to find the "spot" of the nuclear submarine, for example. And since we are already completely futurists, then why don't we aim at two-averages. Well, not right now ...
                      8. hrych
                        hrych 20 October 2021 08: 03
                        +2
                        Also, the main problem of GlobalHock and AWACS Aircraft is the high cost of use. They eat fuel, like horses, takeoff and landing, etc. gimp. The crew is not iron, etc. You won't be able to work around the clock and every day, otherwise the fuel tanker in addition, even in bad weather, will not lift the Hawkeye. And also fly to the patrol site and back. Waste fuel and precious time. And here, put PFAR, ala Zaslon or Irbis, and in the front hemisphere the range is no worse than Sentry. The latter has a circular view, but nothing, the Petrel is not proud, he will turn himself wassat But for months it may not sit down, not leave the patrol zone at all. Weather? Climbed above the weather and continued to work. Its high-speed capabilities are also interesting. In the assembly shop, products have different sweep shapes. Those. on-the-go, variable, for supersonic and subsonic loitering.
                  2. Sling cutter
                    Sling cutter 19 October 2021 20: 04
                    0
                    Quote: Wildcat
                    Which way do you think is better? Well, in order to "have no analogs" and "partners", how should you enlighten?

                    good drinks The only thing that comes in is Juperesild from above with the same process. At least some kind of zest and novelty netanalagafwmire. winked
                    1. Svarog
                      Svarog 19 October 2021 20: 55
                      -6
                      Quote: Stroporez
                      At least some kind of zest and novelty netanalagafwmire.

                      Here are all the achievements ..
                    2. Wildcat
                      Wildcat 19 October 2021 22: 42
                      +1
                      This is for lazy Petrels, or very tired ones ...
                      laughing
                      1. Sling cutter
                        Sling cutter 20 October 2021 15: 59
                        +1
                        Quote: Wildcat
                        This is for lazy Petrels, or very tired ones ...

                        Well this is how it should be for real Petrels. wink laughing
            2. Doccor18
              Doccor18 19 October 2021 16: 22
              +9
              Weight 10-20 tons, rather big. You can't run it in hundreds ... At the same time, it's also slow ...
              Huge missiles make sense only when they fly with multiple sound levels in order to confuse the enemy's air defense / missile defense system. And "crawling hippos" are knocked down quickly and confidently.
              Subsonic CRs fly far, hoping, to a large extent, only for their invisibility. And what is the stealthiness of a 20-ton "blank"?
            3. Shopping Mall
              Shopping Mall 19 October 2021 18: 31
              +1
              Quote: Santa Fe
              first of all, it is limited by the fuel supply.

              With a mass of 2 tons, the flight range of the X-101 ALREADY reaches 5000 km

              Based on the examples of Caliber and X-101, What mass should a CD with a range of 30 km have? Evaluations


              Topaz is a nuclear power plant with negligible efficiency. In Petrel, nuclear fuel most likely directly heats the working fluid.

              However, this does not change the uselessness of this, and any other giant CD - they are all useless, due to their high vulnerability.

              PMSM, KR are good when you can do a lot of them and deliver massive strikes with hundreds or even thousands of KR.
              1. Santa Fe
                19 October 2021 19: 04
                0
                Topaz is a nuclear power plant with negligible efficiency.

                The article provides thermal power reactor Topaz

                Conversion and efficiency no longer solve anything when the thermal power is 10 times less than that required for a subsonic CR (1,2 MW)

                If we calculate the total thermal power with an efficiency of a turbojet engine of about 30%, it will be 4 MW. The value is already 25 times higher than Topaz fuel assemblies could provide
                1. KKND
                  KKND 19 October 2021 19: 56
                  +2
                  Quote: Santa Fe
                  If we calculate the total thermal power with an efficiency of a turbojet engine of about 30%, it will be 4 MW. The value is already 25 times higher than Topaz fuel assemblies could provide

                  Incorrect calculation. The "Petrel" supposedly does not have a turbojet engine. There is a type of something like LDPE worth.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    19 October 2021 21: 12
                    -1
                    Turbojet engine for Caliber, thermal power 4 MW, useful 1,2 MW

                    Dozvuk, 270 m / s thrust 450 kgf
                    What kind of reactor is needed to repeat this.

                    ——- / ——__
                    The most advanced of the small-sized ones created in practice (Topaz) had a thermal power of 0,15 MW with a dead weight of one ton

                    + how and how to heat the working fluid. In a turbojet engine, incandescent particles of the fuel mixture are mixed with air. And at the reactor? With such a small size. It is nothing to simply blow air through the active zone, it is easy to make sure to quickly move your hand in the oven - you will not have time to heat your hand. American projects of the 60s, where the core was the size of a railway platform
                    1. KKND
                      KKND 19 October 2021 21: 17
                      0
                      So I say that 30 percent is very optimistic.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        20 October 2021 09: 23
                        -1
                        The efficiency of turbojet engines is about 30%

                        The efficiency of a nuclear installation is unknown to anyone due to the lack of such an installation. But even with an efficiency of 100%, the thermal power of the reactor should in no way be less than 1,2 MW (net power of the TRDD-50 engine). Otherwise, the rocket just won't fly

                        If the efficiency is the same as that of a turbojet engine, then the thermal power of the YSU is 4 MW.
                    2. petruha256
                      petruha256 12 December 2021 11: 11
                      0
                      "+ how and with what to heat the working fluid. In a turbojet engine, red-hot particles of the fuel mixture are mixed with air. What about a reactor? With such a small size. Just pushing the air through the core is nothing, it's easy to make sure to quickly move your hand in the oven - you don't need to heat your hand will have time. " A round duct with a diameter of 10 mm and a length of 2 meters gives up to 10 kW of heat to the air, subject to the free flow of air under the pressure of the incoming flow and a speed of 270 m / s. Master you draw conclusions, not thinking at all on the merits.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        12 December 2021 11: 47
                        0
                        A round duct with a diameter of 10 mm and a length of 2 meters gives up to 10 kW of heat to the air, subject to the free flow of air under the pressure of the incoming flow and a speed of 270 m / s.

                        What formula was used to calculate

                        Interesting to know
                2. Shopping Mall
                  Shopping Mall 19 October 2021 22: 08
                  +1
                  Quote: Santa Fe
                  Topaz is a nuclear power plant with negligible efficiency.

                  The article provides thermal power reactor Topaz

                  Conversion and efficiency no longer solve anything when the thermal power is 10 times less than that required for a subsonic CR (1,2 MW)

                  If we calculate the total thermal power with an efficiency of a turbojet engine of about 30%, it will be 4 MW. The value is already 25 times higher than Topaz fuel assemblies could provide


                  It is clear that the heat - where is the electrical up to such values. But the design is in any case optimized just like an RTG. In Petrel, there may be a completely different scheme for using fissile materials. But, again, PMSM, all this is nonsense. YARD is needed in outer space, and not in order to litter the planet, including its territory.
                3. petruha256
                  petruha256 12 December 2021 10: 57
                  0
                  "The resulting value is almost 10 times higher than the thermal power of the small-sized reactor" Topaz-1 ". Actually created sample, which was used on space satellites. At the same time, the mass of" Topaz "was 1 ton."
                  Don't try to compare the incomparable. An RTG operating on plutonium 238 has a capacity due to the natural decay of plutonium 238 - about a kilowatt from each pair of kilograms of plutonium.
                  If you want to get 120 kW of heat - be so kind as to charge 240 kg of plutonium 238, and it will always produce this heat, including during storage.

                  In the petrel, the source of heat is a controlled nuclear chain reaction, the power of which is limited only by the heat resistance and radiation resistance of materials.

                  In the civilian reactor RBMK 1000, which, by the way, is designed for long-term continuous operation - 16 MW is removed from one ton of fuel - without straining. What prevents loading 300 kg of fuel into a 1,5 ton rocket and removing, say, 5 MW of thermal power from such a fuel assembly?
                  1. Santa Fe
                    12 December 2021 11: 46
                    0
                    Don't try to compare the incomparable. An RTG fueled by plutonium-238 has a capacity due to the natural decay of plutonium

                    The Topaz reactor was not an RTG
            4. Kostya Lavinyukov
              Kostya Lavinyukov 20 October 2021 02: 33
              0
              Everything is well described in the article about the possibility of creating an arbitrarily long-range missile. But it’s hard to believe in unbreakability and bypass missile defense. If it flies high, it can be detected by radar. Is it flying low? Visually, it can be detected. Catching up and shooting down such a target is not a problem.
              The ratio of the warhead mass to the missile mass at such a range is hardly higher than that of a ballistic missile, and it is more difficult to shoot it down.
              1. failure
                failure 12 January 2022 01: 30
                0
                But it’s hard to believe in unbreakability and bypass missile defense. If it flies high, it can be detected by radar. Is it flying low? Visually you can detect it.


                On a small one - you may find it visually, but how to knock something down?
                All sorts of patriots and s-300-400 and others like them - for the radio horizon they are not very good at shooting. All hope is to send aviation to intercept, if it has time, or to pray for the object air defense.
            5. bayard
              bayard 20 October 2021 04: 58
              0
              Quote: Santa Fe
              With a mass of 2 tons, the flight range of the X-101 ALREADY reaches 5000 km

              If you look closely at the KR X-101 and its carrier Tu-160 - its carrying capacity and the size of the weapons compartments (there are two of them), then it is quite logical to conclude that the carrier has a serious supply of both internal volumes and carrying capacity. And this, in turn, means that larger (longer) CDs can be placed on the launch drums.
              And what is most surprising, this is exactly what it was planned to do according to the late Soviet plans - the creation of a CD with a range of up to 10 km. for Tu-000. Ammunition - 160 KR, which can be used from its own territory, without risking a flight not only over the territory of the enemy or over international waters, but simply launch over the inner expanses of your country.
              And they wrote about this in due time. And they even promised that "just about" ... but apparently the plans were revised, because the existing KR X-101 \ 102 can be launched from the North Pole region, where opposition from enemy aircraft is not expected.
              So why fence a garden?

              Another thing is that the CD is an easy target for enemy aircraft. It is possible to open their approach with the ZGRLS (which they have), and the interceptors already lifted into the air will do their job.
              The same applies to the "Petrel" and any other CD database.

              KR should be used, in the event of a global war, after a disarming strike by ICBMs, SLBMs and GZURs on control centers, reconnaissance and target designation equipment, blinding RLR and RTR equipment with high-altitude nuclear explosions.
              That is, when the enemy is blinded and cannot intercept such convenient and simple targets.
              And these CDs should already destroy the enemy's infrastructure - both military and civilian, ending the work started by other strategic nuclear forces.
        2. kig
          kig 19 October 2021 16: 28
          0
          Quote: Santa Fe
          Range of flight of the KR with trd. How is it limited?

          Most likely, the opposition of an adversary.
        3. The comment was deleted.
          1. Santa Fe
            19 October 2021 23: 49
            -1
            Yes, right

            Follows from the characteristics of existing technology
        4. Stas157
          Stas157 20 October 2021 05: 44
          -2
          In any case, serial drones with a payload of 700 kg, capable of flying from the North to the South Pole, once again give reason to doubt the benefits of a nuclear reactor for flying in the atmosphere.

          These drones are even much cheaper than nuclear-powered rockets. True, the speed of the missile with poison is unknown.
        5. SavranP
          SavranP 30 October 2021 16: 52
          0
          As far as I remember, Topaz had a reactor with a thermoelectric converter. The efficiency of the converter then, and now, was very low, hence the large mass and low power. For "Petrel" the converter is not needed. It goes at low altitude, in the dense layers of the atmosphere, by definition. The finned radiator, through which air is driven, is most likely made of heat-resistant ceramics, (3000-4000) * C. Yes, he can fly for a really long time!
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 20 October 2021 15: 16
        0
        Our anti-ship missiles are armored ...... Granites
    2. just exp
      just exp 19 October 2021 15: 38
      -3
      and what are you going to book it with?
      and do you think they will shoot her down with a Makarov or AKSU pistol?
      or what kind of armor is needed to withstand the explosion of an explosive missile or missile defense missile, if armored attack aircraft of the Su-25 and A-10 type cannot withstand them?
      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 19 October 2021 15: 57
        +2
        We will book on an all-or-nothing basis. Armor with uranium inserts, following the example of Abrams. Or diamonds.

        Or you can try your own, domestic developments, "slippery steel" is called:
        "zenion (zinovy)
        11 October 2021 20: 09
        -1
        A cousin was the commander of a special tank unit regiment with the rank of major. When they went into the first battle and won a strong victory at the entrance to Bessarabia, they received the order and the rank of lieutenant colonel. They said that the tanks were special, made in small numbers and very expensive. German guns and tank guns did not penetrate them, as if the steel was slippery. You could only hear, when the shell hit, it struck the armor. "

        Now such steel looks like screwdrivers: "You have seen Spanish screwdrivers with blue handles. Amazing screwdrivers, but very expensive. Neither twist nor break. Alloy elements have been added to the metal, which would be perfect for tanks, but very expensive and need special melting. But there really were additives for steel, it is impossible to break through and very difficult to do. "

        Well, for the "life-giving clickbait on the site"!
      2. Kayala
        Kayala 19 October 2021 16: 12
        +4
        Don't you understand the jokes at all? People just made fun of the author of the article, known on VO for his irrepressible love for thick armor and "universal" mega-guns. So this is just a joke of humor ... hi
        1. Santa Fe
          19 October 2021 16: 24
          +4
          People just made fun of the author of the article, known on VO for his irrepressible love for thick armor and "universal" mega-guns.

          Thank you for remembering here on VO, it's really nice

          But what was irrepressible love? When was the last time the author touched on the topic of security? On the protection of modern ships, the latest material - 2017
          1. Kayala
            Kayala 19 October 2021 16: 28
            +1
            And yet... request
        2. Wildcat
          Wildcat 19 October 2021 17: 33
          +1
          "Jokes aside. Now let's talk about the serious." (c) Oleg.
    3. Thrifty
      Thrifty 19 October 2021 15: 47
      0
      Oleg, a multi-mode yard, due to this, the rocket can go at high altitudes. This is also an important plus for the yard. Namely, the high altitude allows you to achieve guaranteed targets at any range of its remoteness.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 19 October 2021 17: 40
        +5
        Quote: Thrifty
        Namely, the high altitude allows you to achieve guaranteed targets at any range of its remoteness.

        If this is not a stealth device, then a high altitude is the scourge of God for a subsonic CRBD. Only ultra-low altitudes and flying around the terrain can bring them to the target area and break through (with the massive use of electronic warfare means) the object missile defense / air defense. Therefore, in Ams, Axes do not climb upward, but huddle against the underlying surface. Yes, they can have a large-small flight profile, but only where they are safe from air defense systems. And over the territory of the enemy at subsonic ... - only on the belly and on tiptoe!
        AHA.
    4. alystan
      alystan 19 October 2021 16: 17
      +3
      Better yet, insure in case you get hit)))
    5. Vasyl K.
      Vasyl K. 16 January 2022 20: 36
      0
      Enough tweaking!
  2. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 19 October 2021 15: 08
    0
    The author approached the question from an interesting angle. Previously, the uselessness of the Petrel was understood and its great danger to us was undead for the enemy, but now there are no questions at all.
    1. just exp
      just exp 19 October 2021 15: 40
      -6
      for you, yes, the Petrel is a danger, like the Zircons, Vanguards and Sarmatians.
      but it is easy to remove this danger - stop poisoning your bases around Russia and trying to unleash a war with us.
      1. Terran ghost
        Terran ghost 19 October 2021 17: 32
        -5
        Who is this message addressed to? Or do you assume that this forum is read by the current US President D. Biden and the current US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin?
        try to start a war with us

        And when did the United States try to unleash a war with the Russian Federation?
        stop poisoning your bases around Russia

        https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/INTERACTIVE-US-military-presence-around-the-world.png?w=770&resize=770%2C770
        What "terrible American bases" are you so worried about? And yes ... the number of US troops stationed in Europe and Japan has dropped significantly since 1989. The armies of the key member countries of the military-political NATO bloc - Great Britain, France and Germany - have also been seriously reduced.
  3. Niko
    Niko 19 October 2021 15: 13
    +9
    Maybe it's better about the reactor? (In the sense of battleships), about your favorite lunar tractor?
    1. Wildcat
      Wildcat 19 October 2021 15: 33
      +2
      This is an introductory article, IMHO.
      Obviously, the author suggests that it is best to launch such missiles from a highly protected, mobile platform, that is ... it is best to launch the Petrel from the guns of the corresponding battleship caliber!
      1. Yuriy71
        Yuriy71 19 October 2021 15: 40
        -2
        Only, there are NO Battleships in Russia, and it WILL NOT be expected !!! ... And, also, new cruisers, destroyers and..yu. frigates - piece products !!!
        1. Kayala
          Kayala 19 October 2021 16: 16
          +1
          It's a garbage question, now the author will explain to you in a popular way that pushing a 481-mm cannon onto a frigate is a piece of cake. laughing
          1. Santa Fe
            19 October 2021 16: 40
            +3
            The author will not do this, because he has not stated this anywhere

            Come up with what you want
            1. Wildcat
              Wildcat 19 October 2021 17: 36
              0
              Quote: Santa Fe
              The author will not do this, because he has not stated this anywhere

              Come up with what you want

              Noooooo !!!
  4. Two
    Two 19 October 2021 15: 20
    -2
    Affordable enough. And no questions arise.
  5. alex neym_2
    alex neym_2 19 October 2021 15: 20
    0
    Maybe not in the subject, but in 1941 a non-stop flight through the SOUTH POLE was planned in the summer! Fantastic? Mystic? I have no exact data, only echoes ... But THIS IS 1941 !!!
  6. Bez 310
    Bez 310 19 October 2021 15: 22
    +11
    As far as I understood, Soviet developments about a small-sized nuclear reactor were found somewhere. Having discovered this product, a group of enthusiasts issued it as the latest development, and attached a projectile aircraft to it. Everything was presented to the Supreme Commander as "no analogues" weapon, and after approval, attempts began with attempts to teach this weapon to fly correctly and get into enemy territory.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 19 October 2021 15: 35
      0
      Quote: Bez 310
      a group of enthusiasts passed it off as the latest development,

      Cutting enthusiasts. bully But when they realized that without Soviet scientists and research institutes they would not be able to pull off the project, they needed a version about the uselessness of a nuclear engine. And with the help of Oleg Kaptsov
      ( hi ) they decided to promote this version to the masses. wassat
      PS This is a joke, but analogies with the Rogozinsky rollback from the heavy rocket project can be traced.
      1. AUL
        AUL 19 October 2021 18: 40
        +2
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        needed a version about the uselessness of the nuclear engine.

        I also took this article as the beginning of a rollback from the Petrel. They say, I'm sorry, guys, but a conventional turbojet engine is better (and, frankly, we don't have a nuclear engine yet)
    2. Wildcat
      Wildcat 19 October 2021 16: 01
      +1
      Having discovered this product, a group of enthusiasts
      - this group - WHO SHOULD the group. Now we have already remembered that we have great success in space in nuclear energy and a gap. We need to develop. This is where the "partners" really twitch.
      1. Terran ghost
        Terran ghost 19 October 2021 17: 33
        0
        Now we have already remembered that we have great success in space in nuclear energy and a gap

        What exactly are these successes and breakaway expressed in?
        1. Wildcat
          Wildcat 19 October 2021 17: 44
          +2
          "" Over the past years, we have made significant progress in the development of unique technologies for nuclear space energy. According to experts, Russia is ahead of all our competitors in this area, ahead of the whole world by six to seven years. This is a very good start, and we need to use this advantage, support breakthrough scientific research in the field of astronautics, accelerate the practical implementation of promising technological solutions, "Putin said on Wednesday at a meeting on the development of the space industry."
          https://www.interfax.ru/russia/794360
          Perhaps the "partners" in their Russophobic fantasies will accuse us of violating the ban on placing nuclear weapons in space, but, firstly, this is not true, and secondly, who are they to tell us where to place a peaceful atom.
          The main thing is that we are not "zeroed out" for this case.
          1. Terran ghost
            Terran ghost 19 October 2021 17: 50
            +2
            have made significant progress in the development of unique technologies for nuclear space energy

            Well, where are these technologies? In simple terms, a situation where we have, say, a spacecraft with a nuclear engine, making regular flights to the Moon and back, and competitors have nothing of the kind - this is called "identified all competitors."
            1. Wildcat
              Wildcat 19 October 2021 17: 55
              +2
              When we launch a peaceful research satellite into orbit, about which the "partners" will screech falsely and Russophobic "BOMB, BOMB" - then we will see technology in all its glory.
              IMHO, after the hypersound it goes to this.
              1. Avior
                Avior 19 October 2021 22: 57
                -1
                It happened before
                Kosmos-954 is a Soviet satellite of the US-A series of marine space reconnaissance and target designation systems with a nuclear power plant on board. On January 24, 1978, it fell into Canadian territory, causing radioactive contamination of part of the Northwest Territories.
                1. Wildcat
                  Wildcat 20 October 2021 12: 35
                  +1
                  IMHO we love to "raise the ante", especially with projects from the pre-"normal" era. Therefore, IMHO, the new peaceful scientific satellites will be more amusing than Space 954 in the fall.
                  But the boy-not-boy test with a nuclear contraption in orbit can get expensive, of course. This is not Canyon or Skyfall, this is what really hangs over your head.
          2. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 19 October 2021 21: 36
            -5
            Quote: Wildcat
            According to experts, Russia is ahead of all our competitors in this area,

            Can you find out the names of the specialists? wink
            1. Wildcat
              Wildcat 19 October 2021 22: 44
              +3
              hi
              You can find out the names, of course.
              You can contact Interfax for this.
              There is no need to disturb the President.
              1. Ingvar 72
                Ingvar 72 20 October 2021 08: 12
                -4
                A credible excuse and a credible reference to unknown, but very authoritative specialists! good
                1. Wildcat
                  Wildcat 20 October 2021 12: 27
                  +3
                  I gave you a quote from Putin from Interfax. This is not my direct speech (I am not Putin).
                  Gave a link.
                  Personally, I'm not very interested in who the specialists are. If you need - you are looking for them. So this is not a "excuse" and not a "reference".
                  PS If anything - not my minus.
                  1. Ingvar 72
                    Ingvar 72 20 October 2021 15: 12
                    0
                    Quote: Wildcat
                    I gave you a quote from Putin from Interfax.

                    Putin has proved that he is a banal balobol. Easy to prove. Want to refute? wink
          3. Revival
            Revival 20 October 2021 13: 47
            0
            Monstrously meaningful, some facts and specifics ...
    3. MinskFox
      MinskFox 19 October 2021 23: 09
      0
      Provide evidence? Or, as always, just to blurt out? And the question is, the Soviet people invented ... they have nothing to do with Russia, do they?
  7. Tagan
    Tagan 19 October 2021 15: 31
    +3
    Quote: Dos
    Affordable enough. And no questions arise.

    simplicity is worse than theft. Kaptsov, of course, is a "great" theoretician.
  8. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 19 October 2021 15: 38
    +4
    Thanks for the interesting article! I like the way your analytics run, author!
    I believe that there is a certain quantitative and qualitative facet of large CD, above which the potential enemy will be so concerned about his missile defense (from such goals) that he will invest in acc. developments that will give results after a while - and since missile defense goes against different targets, most likely these developments will go as a kind of monetary bonus to those continuously running through the missile defense complex to protect against different targets. And at the exit, the enemy will simply give birth to a more effective missile defense-in terms of interception and detection. Since we are talking about subsonic CR of large mass, here for the most part, only timely detection is required (which, in general, is not a problem, if we are not talking about ultra-low flight modes of CR) and hardware data processing, which will unambiguously determine such a target as an enemy CR. Intercepting such a target will not be a problem in terms of the characteristics of the interceptor. However, the ratio of the mass of the interceptor to the intercepted object puts the attacking side at an extremely disadvantageous position - the interceptor is much more budgetary than the intercepted object, and the probability of interception is incomparably higher than for a ballistic missile or hypersonic aircraft.
    I believe that due to this dependence, the CRs are within certain limits of the mass and the combination of quantities and characteristics of the application. There is a need to have and develop them, but making the main stake on them with limited resources is a dubious idea. At the moment when a point weapon becomes predictable and basic, its advantages can become its disadvantages. Both Poseidon and Petrel are designed, in my opinion, by their "hypothetical presence" to divert funds for enemy defense, incommensurate with the quantitative and qualitative effectiveness of such weapons. If distracted, their task has already been completed, and most likely this is the idea.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 19 October 2021 15: 55
      -1
      Continuing the UAV theme, it is quite realistic to develop a heavy attack drone for 2-4 Kh-101 missiles or a similar load. The carrier's range of 6 ~ 7 km + the missile's range of 000 km is sufficient to strike at almost any point on the earth.
      Something like the enlarged AR-10 (as an illustration). There is a compartment for 4,2 meters.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 19 October 2021 16: 41
        -1
        A lot of things can be developed, the question is whether our economy will pull large-scale production and proactive modernization against enemy defenses. The enemy learns that we are doing this (and he learns) already at the stage of deep design - given that the enemy surpasses us in resources and volumes of intelligence, potential, hardware-industrial-technological - he has every opportunity to devalue our products even before the deployment of their mass production. with a high degree of probability. For now - at least - in those areas where speeds allow for predictable interception. In these areas, the enemy is concentrating an array of its R&D, using its advantage in economics and technology to its fullest, and pushing us into those areas in which the potential for interception is lower, such as hypersound.
        Without a radical breakthrough in the economy, we will not be able to potentially win in this race - we will be driven into niches, in which they will then be devalued by capital investments in an elegant and large-scale solution such as a "diamond pebble".
        From the point of view of a real conflict, we are not able to produce a sufficiently powerful (non-nuclear) weapon within a certain period of time that can critically affect the success of a local campaign between us and the West in quantities comparable to the West's countermeasures.
    2. Santa Fe
      19 October 2021 15: 57
      +6
      "Burevestnik" are designed, in my opinion, by their "hypothetical presence" to divert funds for the defense of the enemy

      "Burevestnik" was presented in March 2018, before the most important event in the country, the presidential elections

      This "accidental" coincidence "indicates that the main viewer of these videos was the population of the Russian Federation, and the goal was to strengthen the rating and divert attention from other issues.

      Political ads shouldn't make sense. It should be loud and attention-grabbing. For example, a nuclear powered rocket!
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 19 October 2021 16: 26
        +2
        Well, I personally didn't get hooked at all, because the fact that a person standing knee-deep in gasoline will light one match will no longer make any difference. We do not need "one more doomsday weapon" - we still have enough doomsday weapons, our real defense concept is based on it, our national pride constantly rests on it, and so on and so forth. In the case of the Burevestnik, its potential "penetration" will not be significantly higher than that of one of the warheads of classic heavy ICBMs, despite the fact that in the "gray zone of conflict" its use is impossible due to the presence of a mass of fissile materials and radioactive contamination of the terrain. For this weapon to deliver a theoretically decisive first strike on an array of priority targets, we need to have tangible clusters of Petrel, despite the fact that this is a heavy and bulky and expensive missile with a damn faint exhaust (the parameters of which, apparently, have already been determined by the potential enemy). So, on the one hand, it is expensive and unnecessarily noticeable for the first strike, on the other hand, the more large-scale the application is, the more detectable it is (and for the best effect it should be at least moderately large-scale).
        That is, for any more or less analytically thinking person, it is clear that as a weapon of the war that has already begun, the "Petrel" is generally useless because it does not have clear advantages over MIRV ball missiles. As a first strike weapon, it is relatively useful, but this strategy (using it) is completely unsuitable for us for economic reasons. Personally, the T-14 warmed my soul much more, as an example of a healthier attitude to real defense capability in a war that does not imply a total nuclear holocaust.
    3. Alexey Sommer
      Alexey Sommer 19 October 2021 16: 07
      +1
      The CD is a second strike weapon. That is to say, a control shot.
      They should be used after assessing the consequences of the first strike by ballistic missiles, as a finishing ammunition. Those. it is understood that by the time of the use of the CD, the enemy's missile defense / air defense is already in ruins and is not able to provide effective resistance.
      ps To assess the effectiveness of a CD strike with a special warhead, it is necessary to compare not the cost of the CD and the interceptor, but the cost of the CD and the amount of damage caused by this missile to the enemy. These are billions of dollars, i.e. not comparable.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 19 October 2021 18: 15
        +2
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        The CD is a second strike weapon.

        You forget that CRs are also different.
        AMS, for example, (according to the experience of the conducted command and control squads) are planning to conduct an integrated massive air strike of the NATO Joint Forces by 2025-2030 (on our territory, mind you!)
        in the 1st shock echelon, apply:
        - 60% GZKR, 35% BR GZ, as well as 5% GZ of planning blocks.
        In the 2nd echelon:
        - 70% of the means of destruction fall on the KRBD! (of which 80% sea, 15% air and 5% land based)
        And you say that this is a "second strike" weapon ...
        You are very mistaken, dear, however! bully
        1. Alexey Sommer
          Alexey Sommer 19 October 2021 20: 38
          -1
          Sorry.
          May I ask you, where did you get such detailed NATO plans for 25-30 years?
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 19 October 2021 21: 49
            0
            Quote: Alexey Sommer
            Where did you get such detailed NATO plans for 25-30 years?

            From the notes ... the meeting was closed.
  9. Yuriy71
    Yuriy71 19 October 2021 15: 53
    +3
    Once I worked at the Academy of Sciences of one of the countries close to Russia! I'll tell you how New "Projects" are created! The boss simply gives the "Valuable Instruction" to turn over the ARCHIVE and find OCHCCHCHCHEN old developments in the same old reports! Then everything is hammered into the Computer, a New Substantiation of the Topic is written And a bunch of graphs, diagrams, presentations are made !!! The chief goes to the Bathhouse with Druzhbans from the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences (his "friends"), they drink, drink and ..... voila - funding is open and, for a couple of years, you can still Row Money with a Shovel !!! Do not find anything similar with this story! ???
  10. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 19 October 2021 16: 05
    +2
    Such rockets cost nothing to be discovered from space. There is enough time to calculate the trajectory and shoot them down. As a first strike weapon, it is very weak. But to finish off an enemy who has lost or has big problems with the satellite constellation is very real.
    1. DWG1905
      DWG1905 19 October 2021 16: 38
      +3
      Something the author does not like the nuclear power plant (SU), probably green. Or maybe he wanted to provoke a heated discussion which SU is better, where, in the midst of the discussion, someone will eagerly lay out secret information? It is suspicious however. Regarding the range of the CD, as they say, if you are so smart, why don't you go in formation? Already tired of writing the monoplane scheme has one wing, and the half is a plane. It’s easy to spot and shoot down - when there are 500 pieces in a salvo from different directions, you get tired of shooting down. As a weapon of the first disarming strike, in combination with other means, it is very effective.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 19 October 2021 17: 17
        0
        And on whom do we need to launch 500? They will shoot down. And the rest can be reached without essays in caliber.
      2. Santa Fe
        19 October 2021 17: 27
        +1
        Something the author does not like the nuclear power plant (SU)

        Of course not. If the use of a conventional turbojet engine in this case is easier and cheaper.
        More missiles, faster adoption, easier deployment

        Is the Petrel made for the Guinness Book of Records or is it a weapon?
        1. Motorist
          Motorist 19 October 2021 21: 46
          0
          Quote: Santa Fe
          the use of a conventional turbojet engine in this case is easier and cheaper

          And as for me, this is better - a reliable car (and economical, by the way):

      3. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 19 October 2021 18: 27
        +1
        Quote: DWG1905
        As a weapon of the first disarming strike, in combination with other means, it is very effective.

        So the ama suggest hacking our missile defense / air defense with the help of the KR GZ / KR DB ...
        A dangerous and insidious first strike weapon, reaching the target at different heights, at different speeds and from different directions!
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 19 October 2021 19: 38
          +1
          We have a huge hole in the defense caused by the virtual absence of AWACS aircraft. Against missiles flying at a height of several meters, ground-based air defense systems have extremely low efficiency. In the opposite direction, there is no such problem.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 19 October 2021 21: 55
            +2
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            We have a huge hole in the defense caused by the virtual absence of AWACS aircraft.

            Agree. This is problem. They are trying to solve it with the help of the A-100. But, unfortunately, the rates are extremely low. There is still hope for the Container-type surface wave ZGRLS. However, these radars are extremely vulnerable due to their size and the known location of the receiving and transmitting antenna canvases.
      4. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 20 October 2021 08: 52
        -2
        Are you funny) Are you tired of knocking down? What will it be, a Hollywood movie about a lone ranger or a clash of sickly states? It will be possible to repel the first blow in any way) A computer that is 500, that is 50000, practically does not matter. Given the aiming accuracy provided by modern computing systems, the anti-missile should be at least 10 times smaller than the downed missile ...
  11. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 19 October 2021 16: 22
    +3
    10 tons? When launched from a ground installation?
    According to domestic traditions, it looks modest. Consider, for example, the X-22 anti-ship missile 11 meters long and weighing 5 kg
    Yeah: 10 tons is modest compared to 6 tons! Funny.

    The author does not fit anything, neither weight, nor speed, nor fuel consumption! More mass, more traction is needed to maintain speed, more fuel consumption. In this case, the wing must be foldable for the sane dimensions of the launcher and swept for normal speed. Everything, you can disperse, physics won.

    A really created sample that was used on space satellites. In this case, the mass of "Topaz" was 1 ton.
    The author does not take into account the minimum one-year inherent resource and the fact that a significant part of the mass was made by a thermoelectric converter, which is obviously unnecessary in the engine.
  12. KKND
    KKND 19 October 2021 16: 30
    +2
    The entire article is a naked theory based on the "deze" of military missiles thrown into the Internet. There is nothing to discuss here, the only thing that looks like the truth:
    The thrust generated by a turbojet engine, the size of a travel bag, becomes an extremely difficult task when trying to obtain such thrust using a nuclear reactor.

    But this is clear to everyone.
  13. Undecim
    Undecim 19 October 2021 17: 03
    +7
    it is possible to create a cruise missile with a launch mass in the range of 5-10 tons with a flight range of tens of thousands of kilometers.

    A question to the author - why? What tasks will this "wunderwaffe" solve that cannot be solved by the existing types of weapons?
    And the second question - how does the author think about the flight of his miracle - a weapon with a V-1 speed in terms of the availability of modern air defense systems? Let me remind you that the V-1 was shot down by piston fighters and anti-aircraft guns of the middle of the last century.
    Apparently, the laurels of the creators of Kugelpanzer haunt the author.
    1. Santa Fe
      19 October 2021 17: 23
      0
      A question to the author - why? What tasks will this "wunderwaffe" solve that cannot be solved by the existing types of weapons?

      A nuclear powered Kyrgyz Republic was presented before the March 2018 elections by the President of Russia

      This article considered the issue of the possibility of creating such a CD using a conventional turbojet engine
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 19 October 2021 17: 28
        +2
        The fact that "the issue has been considered" is understandable. It is not clear why consider such a useless product from a practical point of view.
        1. Santa Fe
          19 October 2021 17: 40
          0
          The nuclear-powered rocket has gained immense popularity. Despite the contradictions and oddities

          Here is one of the many absurd moments of the Petrel. A CD with a conventional engine can perform such a task.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 19 October 2021 17: 42
            +2
            Yeah, I get it, refuting an absurd idea is even more absurd. An interesting trick.
            Wedge wedge, so to speak.
  14. DenVB
    DenVB 19 October 2021 17: 09
    0
    It will fly to the other side of the Earth, bypassing all air defense and missile defense lines.

    Actually, here is already a mistake. You can bypass only stationary air defense lines. It is difficult to get around the flying AWACS planes and fighters. The longer the missile takes to fly to the target, the more likely it will fall into the field of view of the flying radar, which will point fighters at it.
  15. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 19 October 2021 17: 24
    +3
    As usual, I'll start with the tasks:

    Whom are we shooting?

    Intercontinental range is needed only for the United States. Do not bomb Mexico from South Africa. And we either get the rest from our territory, or from the bases of the allies, or from the ships.

    How much does it cost?

    Are 600 such missiles cheaper than 5 Tu-160 (for 10 flights) and 600 X-101?
    And here it may be that it is cheaper.

    But if you compare it with 600 calibers on the deck of any dry cargo ship, it will not be so unambiguous.

    Is it easier to counter such a missile?

    We must look at the construction. Intuition tells you to dump your tanks. If, 500-1000 km before the target, the rocket drops empty tanks and becomes close in size to the X-101 (or even carries this same X-101 as the second stage), then it will not be easier to shoot down.
  16. DO
    DO 19 October 2021 17: 41
    +1
    Even Khrushchev's "Tsar Bomb" was not without testing on Novaya Zemlya Island in 1961.
    The processes of developing and adopting nuclear-powered missiles also require testing. Each such test cannot but create serious radioactive contamination at the point of landing / splashdown of such a missile. And these points are located on Russian territory.
    Therefore, replacing a nuclear engine with a conventional one that uses chemical processes of fuel oxidation deserves every attention.
  17. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 19 October 2021 18: 18
    +3
    I go ethno, I mean, out of habit, on VO ... I see the heading: "" Petrel without nuclear power plant "... intrigued! But when I started reading ... something" got sick ", like a stack of Orenburg chatter was enough! It's good that the author did not began to dry the brains of readers, like a hair dryer, formulas and abbreviations, as our beloved Damantsev does! No, the author acts in a simple ... the old fashioned way! What to do to make a 2-ton X-101 circled the globe? "Kh-101 kyrasin up to 20 tons, yaki young pioneer frog through a tube! And truncated! ....

    X-101 O. Kaptsova!
    I wanted to enter into a "controversy" ... to rant why, over the 30-40 years of existence, the Tomahawks increased their dignity (range ...) only up to 3-4 thousand km with a turbojet engine ... But I caught myself (!) ... what for ? Given the content of the article, this would be .......................
    1. Santa Fe
      19 October 2021 18: 49
      0
      Yes, take and "inflate" the Kh-101 with kyrasin up to 20 tons,

      This is your fantasy
      why did the Tomahawks increase their dignity (range ...) only up to 30-40 thousand km in 3-4 years of existence?

      The ax does not fly further than 30 km for the last 1500 years

      This is a tactical conventional missile, long range is pointless, no one will wait 30 hours for it to reach the target

      Why only 1500 km, when the Caliber has a range of 2000 (with conventional warhead ~ 450 kg)

      Answer - Tomahawk is the smallest and lightest of the KRBD, 1200-1300 kg + 200 starting booster
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 19 October 2021 23: 12
        0
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Yes, take and "inflate" the Kh-101 with kyrasin up to 20 tons,

        This is your fantasy

        OK ! Not up to 20 tons ... up to 10 tons will suit? Will it make it easier for you?
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The ax does not fly further than 30 km for the last 1500 years

        I wanted to "touch" the potential capabilities of the tomahawks, since you wanted to fly around the Earth on the X-101 ... The Americans somehow worked on the CD project from a series of "tomahawks" with a range of up to 3-4 thousand km ... the range should have been provided by a turboprop engine (TVD) with "propfen" propellers ... True, then they abandoned this project ... (or it didn't work out, maybe ...) A similar story repeated itself with the "product" X-101 ! The "current" KR X-101 with turbojet engine is designed for a range of 5000-5500 km .... (remember what you said about the Tomahawk?) But the project was designed for a longer range (up to 8000-10000 km ...) and on a turboprop engine (TVD) with "propfens"! But the Stone Flower did not come out! Now there is what is available! But somehow I "heard" a message that the idea of ​​a theater of operations has not "sunk into oblivion"! X-101 and increase the range of the CD ...
        Quote: Santa Fe
        This is a tactical conventional missile, long range is pointless, no one will wait 30 hours for it to reach the target

        Those times! "Long range is meaningless"? belay Why are you sending X-101 around the Earth? request For the hype? Whatever it was, but you can count on a CD of "normal" sizes with a range of up to 10.000 km maximum ... and the area of ​​the Earth needs 40.000 km!
        1. Santa Fe
          20 October 2021 07: 47
          0
          up to 10 tons will suit?

          More than

          7-8 tons Granite, Volcano. Placed in with much more stringent requirements, standard ship armament

          On land in a container, launch from an inclined rail installation. It is more than real and practical.
          The current "KR X-101 with turbojet engine is designed for a range of 5000-5500 km .... (remember what you said about the Tomahawk?) But the project was designed for a longer range (up to 8000-10000 km ...) and for turboprop engine (TVD) with "propfens"!

          Conventional small-sized turbojet engine and transonic speed

          KR, with the parameters of the Petrel, without a nuclear engine does not have to have the dimensions of the X-101 and be launched from an aircraft
          This moment was taken into account immediately
          Long range is pointless "?

          Tomahawk Conventional KR, reaction time is important. No one will wait 30 hours for it to fly to the island from another continent. And overpay for a useless option

          The carriers approach the target at a distance of several hundred km (up to 1500 km, 1,5-2 hours of flight)
          Why are you sending X-101 around the Earth?

          This is the idea behind the Petrel presented in the President's Address

          And not around the earth. It should not come back and fall at the launch point.
  18. Zakonnik
    Zakonnik 19 October 2021 18: 44
    +6
    This "Petrel" is the same crap as the "Poseidon".
  19. 123456789
    123456789 19 October 2021 19: 58
    0
    Quote: Santa Fe
    First, you need to estimate the launch mass of the CD with a flight range of 20-30 thousand km

    Existing examples - 5000 km with a launch weight of 2 tons. This is a very encouraging result.

    8t - 20 thousand km
  20. dub0vitsky
    dub0vitsky 19 October 2021 22: 26
    0
    Quote: Santa Fe
    first of all, it is limited by the fuel supply.

    With a mass of 2 tons, the flight range of the X-101 ALREADY reaches 5000 km

    Based on the examples of Caliber and X-101, What mass should a CD with a range of 30 km have? Evaluations

    I am convinced that you are friends with arithmetic. A little logic, and it turns out that the flight range grows in the square of the size, and the mass in the cube. So, you will inevitably come to the size of "Poplar".
    1. Santa Fe
      19 October 2021 23: 59
      -1
      A little logic, and it turns out that the flight range grows in the square of the size, and the mass in the cube.

      No wrong

      The weight spiral does not affect, for example, the warhead and the guidance system, they remain the same.

      The 450 kg warhead of the Caliber is 30% of the rocket mass. For a rocket weighing 5 tons, it will be less than 10%. Fuel capacity and range increase non-linearly

      Caliber 2000 km
      Kh-101, 500-900 kg heavier (according to various sources), range 5000+
  21. Operator
    Operator 19 October 2021 22: 59
    -5
    The supersonic KR "Burevestnik" with a nuclear ramjet engine is sharpened at a range of +40 thousand km so that no one leaves offended - like Australia and New Zealand, where intensive construction of bunkers for the top of Western society is now underway.

    "Petrel" is capable of hitting a target anywhere on Earth (unlike ICBMs and SLBMs) ​​when approaching it from any azimuth and flying along any route - for example, a target in North America from Mexico when launched from Russian territory.

    The Petrel is also capable of taking off and loitering in the air during a special period, for example, over the Arctic regions of the Russian Federation (making it invulnerable to a preemptive enemy strike), after which it can splash down by parachute if the war has not begun, or strike if the war has begun.

    "VVS - universal machine" (C)
    1. Operator
      Operator 19 October 2021 23: 23
      -6
      The Burevestnik mobile launcher is made in the dimensions of a standard large-tonnage container or truck, which in tens of thousands of units daily ply along the roads of Russia.

      "Good morning America" ​​(C) bully
  22. hagen
    hagen 20 October 2021 06: 15
    0
    I will not comment on the details of the article, but I will note that, for example, Yuri Semenovich Solomonov is widely known, but Oleg Kaptsov's fame hardly goes beyond the VO ...
  23. Hitriy Zhuk
    Hitriy Zhuk 20 October 2021 10: 06
    -2
    NATO code designation

    Why write this at all?
    Magic words from the west (l) huh?
    It is possible for cities to have Western names in brackets, and titles with Western counterparts, or even spit and everything is in English ...

    Maybe I don’t understand something?
  24. Dmitry Vladimirovich
    Dmitry Vladimirovich 20 October 2021 12: 38
    0
    Again he mixed in a heap and talks about what he has the most superficial concept ...
    Kapets.
  25. dub0vitsky
    dub0vitsky 20 October 2021 13: 57
    0
    Quote: Santa Fe
    A little logic, and it turns out that the flight range grows in the square of the size, and the mass in the cube.

    No wrong

    The weight spiral does not affect, for example, the warhead and the guidance system, they remain the same.

    The 450 kg warhead of the Caliber is 30% of the rocket mass. For a rocket weighing 5 tons, it will be less than 10%. Fuel capacity and range increase non-linearly

    Caliber 2000 km
    Kh-101, 500-900 kg heavier (according to various sources), range 5000+

    Of course, you have the right to use fractional odds. But I was talking about the principle of counting. Our entire world is permeated by the cube-square ratio.
    1. Santa Fe
      21 October 2021 01: 25
      0
      The flight range increases in cube)))
  26. counterforce
    counterforce 20 October 2021 17: 55
    0
    "Burevestnik cruise missile" (index 9M730, NATO code designation - "Skyfall") ".
    Is that why these NATO codes are constantly being poked into our noses?
    To remember who is the boss in the house and where to take the petition?
    Maybe it's enough to deal with this servility, it's time and honor to know!
  27. gridasov
    gridasov 21 October 2021 08: 34
    0
    The very theme that the Petrel is without a nuclear engine means to me that the advancement of new technology is not as rosy as it was proclaimed. It is obvious for all reasons.
  28. dub0vitsky
    dub0vitsky 21 October 2021 13: 51
    0
    Quote: Santa Fe
    The flight range increases in cube)))

    What joy is this? The flight range is directly related to the fuel consumption, with all other parameters being the same, and the fuel is measured in cubic units, and not in linear and square ones. And from here it follows that the flow rate increases with distance. The fuel burned at the end of the flight must be dragged for these thousands of kilometers. Dumb designers do refueling or separation of steps along the way. The wise are trying to invent perpetual motion machines.
    1. Santa Fe
      21 October 2021 17: 19
      0
      What joy is this?

      Change in mass and increase in range. Clearly

      Caliber - X-101
      1500 - 2000..2400 kg
  29. dub0vitsky
    dub0vitsky 21 October 2021 13: 55
    0
    Quote: gridasov
    The very theme that the Petrel is without a nuclear engine means to me that the advancement of new technology is not as rosy as it was proclaimed. It is obvious for all reasons.

    The difference is in the intended use of the execution options. An extremely expensive thing is suitable for unique strikes, and weapons should be cheap for front-line operations. At least cheaper than the target it destroys.
    1. gridasov
      gridasov 21 October 2021 14: 56
      0
      You are right! But I'm talking about something else - about how to use radioactive materials in an engine to create a driving force. There is a lot of talk about nuclear engines, but when you look at the architecture of the structure, you immediately realize that everything is not logical and unpromising.
  30. svoroponov
    svoroponov 21 October 2021 14: 36
    0
    And the author does not assume that when the target is hit, the engine turns from a nuclear into a nuclear warhead? That is, the engine and the warhead are “two in one”.
    Technologies do not stand still, and what used to seem like science fiction today can be a reality.
    1. agond
      agond 21 October 2021 14: 48
      0
      Probably and in fact, you can get long ranges without the use of a nuclear power source, for example, as ornithologists say, the small bode is able to fly over the ocean without landing 12 thousand km at an average speed of 87 km / h
      1. gridasov
        gridasov 21 October 2021 15: 00
        0
        Radioactivity is a complex of properties that determine the potential energy of a substance, distinguishing them from those substances and materials that do not have this potential .. Therefore, one must understand how to turn it into a driving force.
        1. svoroponov
          svoroponov 21 October 2021 17: 29
          0
          There may not be a radioactive trail during the flight of this rocket
          What is the Petrel engine. A ramjet engine, where instead of supplying heat during the combustion of liquid fuel to the air stream after compression, the supply of heat from the shell of a nuclear reactor, which is washed by this air, is used. When starting, the powder accelerator gives the speed necessary to launch the ramjet, at the same time the nuclear installation is launched, by partial withdrawal of something like rods or other absorber from the reactor core, that is, a controlled chain reaction begins with the release of heat. That's it, the flight is on. Possibly high temperature (equal to the temperature of the liquid fuel during combustion) is transferred through the secondary circuit to the combustion chamber with the help of a liquid metal coolant, that is, the first circuit "floats", almost like in a bath, in the second.
          Since the engine is at the end of the rocket, it is easy to shield the nose, with controls and so on, without greatly increasing the weight. When approaching the target, the absorber is almost instantly
          removed from the core and went uncontrollable chain reaction - that is, a nuclear detonation.
          1. gridasov
            gridasov 21 October 2021 20: 05
            0
            In such algorithms for organizing the process, the old technology of extracting energy from radioactive materials is traced. Very unreasonable and devoid of logic.
  31. dub0vitsky
    dub0vitsky 21 October 2021 20: 43
    0
    Quote: Santa Fe
    What joy is this?

    Change in mass and increase in range. Clearly

    Caliber - X-101
    1500 - 2000..2400 kg

    Why don't you compare the TU-160? Also, after all, different cars.
  32. dub0vitsky
    dub0vitsky 21 October 2021 20: 51
    0
    Quote: gridasov
    You are right! But I'm talking about something else - about how to use radioactive materials in an engine to create a driving force. There is a lot of talk about nuclear engines, but when you look at the architecture of the structure, you immediately realize that everything is not logical and unpromising.

    Do you stand behind the designer and judge, looking at the drawings? Here, in the neighbors, they talk about the engine for the Caliber. This thing weighs in comparison with the weight of the rocket itself in percentage. The rest, the lion's place is occupied by the fuel. The nuclear engine does not take fuel on board at all. And the oxidizer too. He's around - at least eat something. Air. Therefore, she, this machine, will not want to fly in space, if the tank in the liquid for use as a fuel is not hung. And this is not necessary. Moreover, the lower the fly, the more dense the "fuel", and the more it flies through the engine, the stronger the thrust. What distinguishes this principle of movement from all others.
  33. dub0vitsky
    dub0vitsky 21 October 2021 20: 57
    0
    Quote: svoroponov
    And the author does not assume that when the target is hit, the engine turns from a nuclear into a nuclear warhead? That is, the engine and the warhead are “two in one”.
    Technologies do not stand still, and what used to seem like science fiction today can be a reality.

    The fact is that the concentration of nuclear material in the engine and in the charge of the beater is different. If there is at least 70% in the beater, then this suspension can do trouble in the engine. And they shove there poorer content, which can no longer explode. Leftover fuel will infect enemy terrain. But there is not so much of it, there is a lot of it, well, very far from Chernobyl. Compare hundreds of tons with a kilogram ...
    1. svoroponov
      svoroponov 23 October 2021 13: 21
      0
      And you remember the accident on the submarine engine in the Far East. There, during the elimination of the leakage at the reactor, the lid was lifted without securing it as it should be. At that moment, a ship entered the bay with a boat, creating a wave, the boat swayed and the lid moved slightly from a given distance above the reactor. So, this was enough for an uncontrolled reaction to start instantly and the lid was thrown up and to the side by an explosion (and it is very heavy) for 1,5 kilometers.
      So what about the enrichment of fuel in the reactor and the possibilities -
      impossibility of its application? There are simply different types of reactors with fuel of different concentrations of uranium in it. For civilian purposes is one thing, for military purposes,
      other. As for the mass - remember the nuclear briefcase of the USSR. The first American bomb contained only about 70 kg of fissile material.
  34. Dilettante grandfather
    Dilettante grandfather 22 October 2021 05: 10
    0
    Quote: Alex2048
    And if not along the route presented by the president? And let's say with some "freezing" (movement in a circle) for 2-3 days or even longer

    To hover, the rocket will have to be equipped with a retractable airship, which will negatively affect its invisibility.
  35. Alexander Akchurin
    Alexander Akchurin 23 October 2021 12: 11
    0
    According to the article, the thrust of the turbojet engine is. 360 kgf, specific consumption 0,71 kg / kg * hour. At a speed of 850 km / h (236 m / s), at a cruising altitude with a thrust of 360 kg, the rocket will consume 256 kg of fuel and travel the same 850 km. To cover a distance of 30000 km, it will need 35 times more fuel, which will be 8960 kg. Plus the navigation stock (wind, course correction, maneuvering avoiding obstacles and flying to the target at low altitude), we get 9500 kg (12700 liters). Warhead weight (500 kg) + control and guidance equipment (200 kg) plus a glider 6500 kg with a weight return of 0,4-0,45. We get that the quality of this device must correspond to at least 47-48 (weight / thrust), but this is not realistic. The thrust-to-weight ratio of this device with such an engine will also make up a real figure of 0,021. Conclusion that for such a purpose you need a completely different engine or change the conditions of the problem
  36. akm
    akm 23 October 2021 18: 15
    0
    drinks For the three hundredth anniversary of the Russian Empire!
  37. dub0vitsky
    dub0vitsky 23 October 2021 20: 26
    0
    Quote: svoroponov
    And you remember the accident on the submarine engine in the Far East. There, during the elimination of the leakage at the reactor, the lid was lifted without securing it as it should be. At that moment, a ship entered the bay with a boat, creating a wave, the boat swayed and the lid moved slightly from a given distance above the reactor. So, this was enough for an uncontrolled reaction to start instantly and the lid was thrown up and to the side by an explosion (and it is very heavy) for 1,5 kilometers.
    So what about the enrichment of fuel in the reactor and the possibilities -
    impossibility of its application? There are simply different types of reactors with fuel of different concentrations of uranium in it. For civilian purposes is one thing, for military purposes,
    other. As for the mass - remember the nuclear briefcase of the USSR. The first American bomb contained only about 70 kg of fissile material.

    Yes, what a heresy! The explosion both at the submarine, in Chernobyl, and at Fukushima, were not nuclear, but chemical. Physics for the military and civilian is different. Are you out of your mind? At least in the Chernobyl type, when fresh fuel rods are loaded, the concentration in them is 3%. After working off, the concentration increases to 9%. And they become less manageable, they threaten to go to pieces, and they need to be replaced with fresh ones. The closer the mass is to the critical one, and the shape of the element predisposes, the more likely it is to transition into an explosion. The course of reactions depends significantly on the shape of the element. No one will balance on the blade in engines; a reasonable control margin is chosen.
    "Nuclear briefcase" is not about a warhead at all. This is the President's command port, from which he gives instructions for the use of nuclear weapons.
    1. northwest
      northwest 30 November 2021 11: 36
      0
      I suppose that under the "nuclear suitcase" "svoroponov" meant that in the USSR, from 1967 to 1993, there were special small-sized nuclear mines RA41, RA47, RA97 and RA115. In addition, the so-called "nuclear backpacks" RYA-6 weighing 25 kilograms and with a capacity of up to a kiloton were in service.
  38. Wildfire
    Wildfire 24 October 2021 10: 18
    0
    I will explain to the author the essence of this Burevestnik cruise missile. The main thing for the KR Petrel is not the range of its flight, but the unlimited time spent in the air! That is why this CD is equipped with a small-sized nuclear power plant. The principle of using this KR Petrel is almost the same as that of the strategic unmanned underwater vehicle Poseidon (Status 6).
    The Petrel missile will be launched from the carrier and, being in airspace, will wait for the right moment to strike the enemy! After all, the launch of this cruise missile will be carried out without entering the 2A / AD zone of its strategic carrier. After that, this CD, being outside the zone of destruction by enemy air defense means, simply "cuts circles" of thousands of kilometers and "confuses its tracks." And attacks the enemy from the most unexpected place for him. This is the whole trick! Therefore, a nuclear power plant is needed there, which does not actually limit the flight time of the KR.
    1. northwest
      northwest 30 November 2021 11: 29
      0
      Dear Wildfire!
      I agree with your reflections on the proactive launch of the Burevestnik and the time of its loitering in the waiting area.
      Another thing is interesting. Finally, it happened.
      Signals passed through the networks of the Central Bank of Ukraine, "Military alertness", followed by "Military danger". A decision was made to launch the Burevestniki. We flew, a day passed. the Americans got scared. The presidents drank a cup of brandy for brotherhood, and the troops retreated. A week later, the question arises: what to do with flying missiles? Flood at Point Nemo.
      And if tomorrow is war?
      Well, my thoughts about this product.
      For a product with a flight speed of 900 km. no super-megawatt propulsion is needed.
      According to some assumptions, the rocket uses an engine according to scheme B, but this is a radioactive trace throughout the entire flight phase. Yes, in the comments it was already mentioned that during "H" the extra couple of thousand X-rays do not play a role.
      And if the hang-up ?. According to rumors, at one time in Nososke a power plant exploded to provide electricity to the Burevestnik power plant.
      So maybe, after all, it is a closed-type reactor (B) and a generator.
      Perhaps all my writing is pure fantasy.


      [Center]
  39. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 24 October 2021 16: 30
    0
    Lift an 85 kg engine with your hands? Author, are you a weightlifter? The Petrel is a retaliation weapon. That is, it will be used when the atmosphere is full of dust, all sorts of debris and other things. You can't fly on a regular engine.
  40. Knut Johanson
    Knut Johanson 26 October 2021 11: 46
    0
    "Burevestnik" is an extremely controversial project, not even because it will pollute the atmosphere with radioactive emissions in flight - at the time of its actual use it will no longer matter. Just in order to bring it to mind, it will take a lot of tests, most likely over its territory with all the ensuing consequences. In addition, the radioactive trail that it will leave in the atmosphere will make it easy to detect it in flight, for example, from a satellite, and given the low speed, the enemy will have enough time to make a decision to repel an attack.
    1. petruha256
      petruha256 12 December 2021 00: 34
      0
      "In addition, the radioactive trace, which it will leave in the atmosphere, will make it easy to detect it in flight, for example, from a satellite." How is the detection of a radioactive trace from a satellite? What physical indicators should a satellite record in order to determine the presence of a radioactive trace?
  41. seziomoff.s
    seziomoff.s 11 November 2021 13: 35
    0
    The author did not quite correctly understand the principle of use and purpose of this rocket. The flight range is not the main thing there.
    After launch, it should hang in the air for weeks, somewhere in a remote area of ​​the Pacific Ocean, and upon receipt of target designation, go to the target in any area of ​​the world. This is Poseidon in the air.
  42. petruha256
    petruha256 12 December 2021 00: 16
    0
    "The resulting value is almost 10 times higher than the thermal power of the small-sized reactor" Topaz-1 ". Actually created sample, which was used on space satellites. At the same time, the mass of" Topaz "was 1 ton."
    Don't try to compare the incomparable. An RTG operating on plutonium 238 has a capacity due to the natural decay of plutonium 238 - about a kilowatt from each pair of kilograms of plutonium.
    If you want to get 120 kW of heat - be so kind as to charge 240 kg of plutonium 238, and it will always produce this heat, including during storage.

    In the petrel, the source of heat is a controlled nuclear chain reaction, the power of which is limited only by the heat resistance and radiation resistance of materials.

    In the civilian reactor RBMK 1000, which, by the way, is designed for long-term continuous operation - 16 MW is removed from one ton of fuel - without straining. What prevents loading 300 kg of fuel into a 1,5 ton rocket and removing, say, 5 MW of thermal power from such a fuel assembly?
  43. Alexey Gorokhov
    Alexey Gorokhov 12 December 2021 08: 52
    0
    Dear author, it seemed to me, or do you estimate the range of the CD by extrapolating their mass? Those. if we make a CD with a mass of 1000 tons, will it reach the moon? (joke)

    In fact, the flight range of an aircraft (and KR is a de facto aircraft) is determined as follows:

    L = 102 * H * K * η * ln (1 / (1-m)) [km], where H is the heat of combustion of fuel in MJ / kg
    η is the total efficiency of the power plant (for a given engine, somewhere around 0,26), m is the relative mass of the fuel, K is the aerodynamic quality.

    Thus, it is problematic to exceed the range of 20 km using hydrocarbon fuel. On the other hand, a range of, for example, 000 km can be achieved by a CD of practically any mass. For this, however, it will need more development of the wings and a decrease in the high-speed pressure (transition to a cruising altitude of 8000 km or a decrease in speed at low altitude and a transition to a propeller ...)
  44. eliel
    eliel 25 January 2022 17: 36
    0
    needs to be painted pink
  45. Sergey Melnik
    Sergey Melnik 3 February 2022 03: 39
    0
    The author, do not try to equate completely different, both in purpose and use, aircraft. In this way, you can just do all the air and missile technology in one pile, they say it flies, the speed is approximately the same, which means the same thing. And the fact that the goals and objectives are different is not important, they can be ignored. The fact of the matter is that they are all created for different purposes and the requirements for them are therefore also specific
  46. Igor Valimukhametov
    Igor Valimukhametov April 10 2022 17: 11
    0
    But it can fly not for 32 hours, but for a whole year, if not more. The main thing here is not to forget that it flies somewhere with you.